Yes, we're going to totally dismiss this and look at it as irrelevant.

Right.

How do you think some feel when we approach you with Steven Jones, we're critical of things like this in the same way, don't throw rash comments
HowardRoark.

I for one do not contend that this is irrelevant, but untrustworthy as it this company had contracts to work on the debris for 9/11.

ASSERTION 1

This only focuses on as if the buildings were to be brought down conventionally like a commercial controlled demolition. From the base up. But yet it
talks about how creating a huge gravity load to bring down the building. Weakening core columns/beams with the weight of the upper floors, can cause a
large enough force to bring down the rest of the building PROVIDED the lower supports were weakened significantly enough to allow them to be brought
down by such a force.

ASSERTION 2

Assertion 2 talks about the path of least resistance but there was a lot of resistance? Lots of resistance? Resistance would show itself when you have
a structural building, with floors filled with concrete and steel, and a sturdy steel core being brought down without resistance by an upper gravital
powered mass.

All 70+ floors below each collapse zone seemed to of given out pretty fast, even with each floors being a majority of just empty space, with office
equipment, but the equipment doesn't make itself to be a substantial mass factor. Even with floor on floors, you had the upper half of the building
destroying itself as it came down while it was destroying lower floors. With upper floors being ripped apart and strewn on the streets, you don't
have a faster pace of fall on the building. You meet resistance from the structural supports and the air (even with air resistance being minimal).

But to the side of that, of course they didn't fall straight in their footsteps, but that the footstep comment is made generally to point out how
they didn't tip over or cause significant damage to a majority of a side of the towers. Debris can be expected. This is to pose as if it was a
"PERFECT DEMOLITION" which is obviously was NOT.

ASSERTION 3

Get real, address all the squibs. It's pretty reasonable to anyone that understands air flow that the "squibs" RIGHT UNDER the collapse wave were
from falling floors and air pressure being shot out.

Take a look at the ones a bit farther below that and address it.

K thx, Drive thru.

ASSERTION 4

Hmmm, witnesses heard explosions yet no explosives were found.

Can that be logic and be applied to.

Hmmm, witnesses saw a plane crash, yet no plane was found.

What did they hear? Sonic boom of air pressure out of the falling floors?

ASSERTION 5

The hot spots provided by the photos by NASA indicated VERY high temperature hot spots, which provides enough evidence of volumous amounts of molten
material, that with what was found at the 9/11 site, seen coming out of the building and on the streets.

What else in the building do you have copious amounts of that can burn that hot (metals)?

They didn't even provide an explanation for what it could be, they said "based on testimonials from workers" (hmm testimonials from witnesses
hearing explosions during collapse don't count though?), photographs.

Hmm what are the molten pools then? Someone anyone? And what caused the high temperatures.

Weak.

ASSERTION 7

They stay away from the WTC 7 issue, read the bottom paragraph. That's sort of funny

ASSERTION 8

Hah, yeah, fires made the WTC 7 fall from the bottom up. Right. Oh wait, might I add, simultaneous collapse, just like the WTC 1 and 2. But however my
main focus on this is WTC 7's kink.

Mr Blanchard is an aknowledged expert in the field of building demolitions. When you show me someone with the same credentials then we can
talk.

There must be at least a few dozen acknowledge experts in the field of demolitions. Can I be directed to a source that spells out what his expertise
are (apart from winning awards for photography)?

Either way, apparently JIMC5499 will not think critically unless "experts" get the ball rolling for him. By the same logic, if he were to live in
Galileo's day, for example, he would not believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as most "experts" then believed that the Earth did not
revolve around the Sun (Galileo himself was predominantly a mathematician!). The Earth may very well have still been flat for him, as well. How
justified were the vast majority of "experts"?

Point is, there's nothing logical behind putting so much blind faith into anyone's personal opinion, refusing to consider rebuttals unless they are
issued from another "expert", unless your objective is to simply agree with convention. These are discussion forums for a reason, I would imagine,
rather than parroting forums.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.